BishopAccountability.org
	Church, Victims Split Again Catholic Officials Oppose Look-Back Period in Child-Abuse Bill By Dan Horn Cincinnati Enquirer [Ohio] May 29, 2005 Child-abuse victims and Catholic bishops are bracing for a battle in the Ohio legislature that neither side wants. The anticipated dispute is over a child-protection bill that would allow victims to sue the church in decades-old clergy-abuse cases, most of which are too old to take to court under existing law. Victims' groups favor the change and the church opposes it. Both sides agree an ugly showdown in the Ohio House of Representatives, which is considering the bill this month, could hurt everyone involved. Victims fear a protracted fight in the House could lead to a watered-down version of the bill, and the last thing church officials want is another public confrontation with people who accuse them of mishandling abusive priests. "It's very difficult," said Dan Andriacco, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. "We're being accused of not being pastoral in our approach to this." But a battle may be inevitable. The bill, known as Senate Bill 17, raises legal, constitutional and financial questions that some say are impossible to resolve to everyone's satisfaction. The questions include: Is the bill constitutional? Church officials say the new law would be unconstitutional because it would retroactively change the rules. Victims' groups say the House should pass the law and let the courts decide whether it's constitutional. Would it cost too much? Bishops have described the retroactive provision as "punitive" and contend it could cost the church - and the parishioners who support it - huge legal fees. Victims say money is not their main concern but they are entitled to justice, no matter what the church has to pay. Is it fair? Church lawyers say it will be difficult to prove abuse claims that occurred so long ago. But victims say they should be allowed to try, in part because successful court cases would saddle abusers with a legal record that would stay with them for life. Compromise is possible, but those involved on either side are digging in their heels. They have mailed letters to all 99 representatives. They have lobbied lawmakers in person. They have e-mailed supporters with dire warnings about the consequences of failure. The main purpose of Senate Bill 17 is to tighten the rules for clergy, teachers and others in reporting child abuse. But the most controversial provision involves the statute of limitations, which requires child victims to sue within two years of their 18th birthday. The bill would extend that limit to 20 years and would create a one-year "look-back period," during which victims could sue the church for abuse that occurred as long ago as 35 years. Without the look-back period, older abuse allegations won't be heard in court. Victims say it's crucial because the cases are too old to criminally prosecute and lawsuits are the only way to hold the church and abusive priests accountable. "These victims were let down," said Marci Hamilton, a New York lawyer who has advised the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). "It's the only chance for them to find some way to get some measure of justice." A national movement At least a half-dozen states have considered look-back periods and one state, California, has passed such a law. "This is a national political movement by survivors," Hamilton said. Victims say they have no other option. They have complained for years that statutes of limitations are too short, leaving them with no legal options when, years later, they finally come to terms with the abuse. But critics in California and Ohio have argued that the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids applying any law retroactively. "These are very emotional issues, but that can't prompt us to throw out the system," said Scott Greenwood, a Cincinnati lawyer who works with the American Civil Liberties Union. "Maybe the statute of limitations should be lengthened. If that's the case, the legislature is free to do that. "What it's not free to do is resurrect claims that have already expired." Greenwood, who is not involved in the clergy abuse litigation, said time limits are necessary because they bring finality to criminal and civil cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled criminal laws cannot be retroactive. But Hamilton said a look-back period in civil cases is legal because it changes only the amount of time a person has to sue, not the legal definition of the offense. "The question," she said, "is whether the House is willing to go forward and see if it's constitutional." Cost may be high House members also must decide whether the look-back period is fair. Some worry it would be a legal nightmare to try a 35-year-old case involving an elderly priest, witnesses with hazy memories and church officials who weren't in charge at the time of the offense. "Thirty-five years strikes me as being a little much," said Rep. Bill Seitz, a lawyer and a Green Township Republican. "Documents are gone. Witnesses have passed away. It isn't easy." It also could be expensive. Ohio's bishops oppose the look-back period because it could expose the church to lawsuits and millions of dollars in legal fees. "We believe this is unconstitutional and will be found to be unconstitutional, but it's going to cost money just to get to that point," Andriacco said. "Every time a suit is filed, it's going to cost us money." He said that means it will cost parishioners money, forcing dioceses to shift resources from ministry and charitable activities to legal fees. Victims' groups say church officials are trying to scare Catholics into opposing Senate Bill 17. They said similar predictions have failed to come true in California, where some dioceses have paid settlements through insurance policies rather than wait for the courts to determine if the law is constitutional. "The truth has been exposed without any of the dire consequences," said David Clohessy, SNAP's national director. "It's irresponsible for bishops to threaten financial hardship." Headed to court Most agree some version of the bill will be approved, but it may not include the look-back provision. Already, Seitz has proposed an alternative. He suggests a law that allows judges to declare priests "sex offenders" after a civil trial. The priests and church would not face criminal or financial penalties, but the priests would be required to register with authorities as sex offenders. This, Seitz said, would protect the public and saddle abusers with a legal record without sticking Catholics with the bill. Christy Miller, of SNAP in Cincinnati, said civil lawsuits are a better remedy. "We already have a process in place that works. Why would we try to create a whole new process?" Miller said. "We're not asking for anything but more time." Regardless of what the House does this month, Clohessy said, the final battle over Senate Bill 17 will likely be fought in court. "We could debate the constitutionality from now until eternity," Clohessy said. "But ultimately, nobody knows but the courts."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.